The last 4 guys were excellent, but hardly dominant, now, were they?
Thus, they have nothing to do with my point.
And I don't recall saying Rice never won anything, now, did I?
***
I didn't expect anyone to agree with my points, frankly, save perhaps one or two souls...
But the stark inability to grasp the simple points that I'm presenting is astounding.
The point you are presenting is you can't win titles with a dominant WR so the Pats are better off without Moss. You present as evidenced the one stat of the WR with the most TD receptions in a season not playing on a Super Bowl winner in 20+ years.
Everyone grasps your point, most just don't think leading the league in TD receptions is the only measure of a dominant WR and look back over the last 20 years and see plenty of Super Bowl champs that featured dominant WRs.
Michale Irvin was a dominant WR in his prime. He broke down with injuries and they shortened his career but in the 5 years span where the Cowboys won 3 rings he averaged 90 catches, 1400 yards, 16 YPC and 8 TDs.
Now you are saying these guys weren't dominant?
Harrison - 2nd all time in cacthes, 6th in yds, 5th in tds, 4 100 catch years
Bruce - 6th all time in catches, 3rd all time in yds
Holt - 11th all time in catches, 10th in yds, 5 staright years of 1300 yds
I guess the only dominant WR of the past 20 years are Moss and TO?
Last edited:












